Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Vs Pipavav Shipyard Limited (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Fabrication of various cranes which were embedded to earth could be treated as excisable goods within the meaning of Capital Goods defined in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Cenvat Credit availed of Inputs/Capital Goods like HR Plates, MS Flats, […]
Nodal Officer Vs GST Council (Gujarat High Court) While in the case on hand, this Court has not declared the said Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 neither this Court has ordered the respondents to carry forward CENVAT credit beyond the time limit, but in the case on hand, the respondents herein had tried […]
The Petitioner herein accordingly is directed to continue depositing the Cess amount as per revised rate under protest as they have been doing in the past. The said deposit would be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals by the Honble Supreme Court.
Aditya Gupta Vs. Union of India (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in File No. DGGI/JZU/INU/GST/02/18-19 filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit for offences under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (h), (j) and (k) read […]
Global Knitfab Vs State Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court) The writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim order passed by this court and got the vehicle along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of […]
Motor Vehicle tax as per Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 should be calculated only upon the purchase invoice value and not upon the value listed in the local web portal as assessee’s case did not fall in the 2nd proviso of the operative portion of Sec.2(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976.
In this case in which GST department has raised Interest Demand on Gross GST without considering the Input Tax Credit, Hon’ble Court has directed the department to not to take any coercive steps for the purpose of recovery of the interest.
Reopening of assessment was justified in case of EDPL as there were sufficient ‘reasons to believe’ that income had escaped assessment and the bar to reopening of proceedings after expiry of four years from the date of final assessment order, under the proviso, did not apply in assessee’s case and there was no requirement to issue two separate notices in the name of amalgamated company (i) as successor-in-interest of the amalgamating company and (ii) in its individual capacity as EDIPL had ceased to exist as a separate entity.
Deendayal Port Trust Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) On one hand, when the ACES Portal did not permit the petitioner to file revised return for the second time due to which the claim of ITC to the tune of Rs.99,46,810/ was not reflected in the last return in Form ST3 filed by the […]
The issue under consideration is whether additional court fees of 1% of the amount involved in the dispute leviable before filing of the appeals under GST Act is justified in law?
